Accounts e-mail HP

Random map?

Random map?

Poll ended at Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:36 pm

Yes, fractal generator
1
13%
Yes, fractal generator, with human preview
6
75%
Yes, island generator
0
No votes
Yes, heightmap generator
0
No votes
No
1
13%
 
Total votes : 8

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby morphles » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:10 am

Well, lets do full hijack of this thread which hopefully won't matter as poll is finished :)

- Yeah I like hexes and really want to push them harder, as I see them "topologically superior" in all ways.
- Heh don't know where you got idea that I do not like alliances :) I was just proposing alternative solutions to what some people percieve as problems. In general I see diplomacy and alliances as integral part of civ or even more any 4x game.
- what is more ballance strenthening? after skimming of the links you gave I think I disagree with you here. Things like spearmen wining agains battleship, well in very specific situations its ok, mostly it's just silly.
- I do not think I said that I do not like ocean worlds :) but I see variety as good, also I know that I would do much much worse on high land map.
- Well with restrict infra,.. dunno its kinda interesting, but a bit illogical(for roads), though current game has it and makes some things better so I do not have strong opinions on that.

Now "anti-determinism" ? You ether misunderstood me or used wrong term. I'm very much for strategic games having quite a bit of determinism, mainly random events must be scaled approporiatly. That said this has very little to do with initial setup of game at all, random map all the way. (though ocasional scenarions that are not too heavy on specific starting conditions (like current gt08) are ok at least some times) But in game things shouldn't be too random, the aformentioned spearmen vs battleship should overhelmingly be in ships favor (and ships are awseome, always!:) ) There is just no logical way how sparemen defending on land (not in city) could ever win against battleship that does not even get close to shore. Or the tech loss things, they are hard for me to stand; based on chances and with very large impact outcomes I see them as very bad, cause you can be very strongly screwed by chance, very bad in strategy oriented game IMHO. So thats my stance of random stuff/determinism.

Vision/movement. Well 2x movement is almost needed for games of gt/lt pace, but i see 3x movement as quite too much. Now vision, well due to discrete nature of game lots of things in civ franchase get complicated, same with vision. Simply multiplying vision might not be such a good idea, though having multiplied movement and not vision increases randomness in game. Basically it gives attacker much bigger advantage of surprise as he can come from the shroud more easily (which might not be that bad as defender gets almost all other bonuses). On the other hand I think it forces more conservative/passive play as you will wish to have strong defences to avoid such surprise attacks. What I am very much for is situational vision bonuses i.e. cvi2civ3: +vision on mountains = great(like in civ3), +vision in fortress = even more great, this allows you "to invest in information" so to speak.You basically get knowledge of your surroundings for some investment which I see as very nice thing as it is one more place where you can/should spend resources, also preferably combined bonus should put most of possible attackers in field of vision.

Hm as for wonders and specialization I think I'll post points about it in GT06 board. Edit, heres the link: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=833#p3326

As for your ideas in linked topics quite a few of them seem to favor chance not in the best way, or have kinda contradictory wishes of fairnes/balance and randomnes. It's not that it is not doable, but it is really very very hard to have something like a fair random generator (well island one is quite fair but for some reason many do not like it :( gt06 was island world and I quite liked it). Or there was a post about writing generator that would place players in fair positions, I'll just say that I think that this task is most likely very hard. This is why I proposed random map with human preview and start position placement, and you can bet that even after this is done people will not be statisfied with balance, meaning it is even hard for human ;) Also fidling too much with map generation will only tend towards maps that are even more difficult to balance. Not that I find that this is always bad. Sometimes you just get lemons and have to try to make lemonade so to speak, sometimes even loosing position can be quite interesting to play, (insanely interesting if you mange to turn it around! happend me once in bot game) Well I'm also roguelike player so... thats where such view comes from. That said such things should not be too common.

Last thing for this post: earth base/country based/(real)continent based maps. Somehow I find it a bit silly to "reinact" history in civ games. First of game is way too limited and way too different to aproach reality and I like to treat it as game. That one can mock up something like as similar starting position to some historic event does not mean that its a good idea. Given bigger chesboard and arbitrary number of pieces I could arange someting like battlesciene of some battle using chess, not that it would be good idea or that chess was designed for that. (I know flaky example;)) Also even if you start with very acurate starting conditions for some point in history, divergence will happen very quickly and any connection or semblance will be lost, and you will be playing: game of civ with inent of wining, which most likely not what history was about. And lastly I do not sea "reality" based maps as particularly suited or interesting for civ games. Continents seem way too large for my liking, huge swaths of land with no access to ocean or even large lakes OR small map that loses accuracy, leading to... why even bother basing it on something? Also realistically things like mountain ranges or deserts can be/are like *HUGE*, seriously, and on those parts accuracy seems to always be sacrificed, and the question comes back, why base it on reality in first place? Case in point: gt08 I started in amazonian... grasslands, seriously? On the other hand if it were all jungle as it's supposed to be I'd be boned like hell from the start. With all that said gt08 seems to be going quite nicelly :)
Last edited by morphles on Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:57 am

Davide wrote:You won't guess, reading morphles' posts over the last few week I built up myself a mental picture of morphles' "persona" which for some time couldn't stop to periodically remember me of you :lol:

Anyway, after the defrost, a random map was due to finally alternate the scenarios trend.. and btw, teach all these guys a hard lesson by pressuring their borders with some "Fattipiuinlà" cities :lol:


Hey, and Morphles suddenly appeared right when I went away.... intriguing. Maybe he's my Tyler Durden side...
About Fattipiuinlà, for a moment I thought you redirecte me to the GT01 history map video... :( ok, I can live with Sorelle Bandiera.
When will the world know the great achievements of General Monamipierrot?
By the way, with GT09 I'm going back to leading the Amazons so please call me HER Majesty MonamiPiera. I will fight the phallocentric empires to the last woman and have reverse breast surgery.
Will you take part in the action this time?
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:50 pm

morphles wrote:
- Yeah I like hexes and really want to push them harder, as I see them "topologically superior" in all ways.
we also should hijack GreatTurn and have a hex game with GT10!
morphles wrote:- Heh don't know where you got idea that I do not like alliances :) I was just proposing alternative solutions to what some people percieve as problems. In general I see diplomacy and alliances as integral part of civ or even more any 4x game.
pardon, I had not been clear. I meant I (and you) don't like how GT (or even LT) fiddle with limiting alliances with artificial limits such as number of allies or so on. It doesn't make sense to me. We should instead incourage players to leave big alliances with proper changes in game mechanics. I don't like to add rules and subrules and subsubrules. I think a good Rule is enough if we think about it a little bit.
morphles wrote:- what is more ballance strenthening? after skimming of the links you gave I think I disagree with you here. Things like spearmen wining agains battleship, well in very specific situations its ok, mostly it's just silly.

Please tell me how can a battleship defeat some mobile people with a light weapon. How can it track them and properly bomb them from dozens of miles away? Many of Freeciv battles are "impossible" ones. But a Freeciv battle must end with only one survivor. So the battleship has no other option: after bombing, it needs to desembark some sailors to finish the job, and althou they have rifles and guns, they will be in a hostile environment. Meanwhile the spearmen (they are supposed to be thousands) could reach the battleship near the coast with some canoes by night, climb upon it and start to slaughter the other sailors. To give a 10 to 1 chances to the Battleship is in my opinion, more than enough, while in Freeciv it has a 3-digit number (or more) against 1.
morphles wrote:
Now "anti-determinism" ?

Freeciv (and Civ2) are much more determinist than Civ1 which had an - IMHO - ideal balance. I totally agree that the techloss chance have no sense to me. See my last post (yesterday) about notech trade in General Discussion for an intriguing alternative to techloss.
morphles wrote:
Vision/movement. Well 2x movement is almost needed for games of gt/lt pace, but i see 3x movement as quite too much. Now vision, well due to discrete nature of game lots of things in civ franchase get complicated, same with vision. Simply multiplying vision might not be such a good idea, though having multiplied movement and not vision increases randomness in game. Basically it gives attacker much bigger advantage of surprise as he can come from the shroud more easily (which might not be that bad as defender gets almost all other bonuses). On the other hand I think it forces more conservative/passive play as you will wish to have strong defences to avoid such surprise attacks. What I am very much for is situational vision bonuses i.e. cvi2civ3: +vision on mountains = great(like in civ3), +vision in fortress = even more great, this allows you "to invest in information" so to speak.You basically get knowledge of your surroundings for some investment which I see as very nice thing as it is one more place where you can/should spend resources, also preferably combined bonus should put most of possible attackers in field of vision.

I almost completely agree with you. Vision should be kept as low as possible and bonuses should be granted on some basis, as the ones you told. About movement, 3x not only enhance game speed, but it also radically alter and enriches (even comparing with 2x movement) terrain movement cost mechanics cause it does set mountains as still "impassable" barriers while hills (and jungles and swamps...) can be passed in one turn (at a quite high cost). I played a few 3x-movement games and after some disoriented beginnings ("which f***ng martian spaceship dropped that enemy cavalry in the very middle of my sacred land?") I learned to have a much wider awareness of land and its secrets. With 3x you start to respect the environment :) and to have it working for you! You literaly start to give names to mountains cause they DO count, a lot. Ho can I forgot the LT29 battles around the Devil's Cleft) (a place were the Cuban river run throu mountains passing directly over a hill tile which was the only entrance to my empire for the enemy...)
morphles wrote:
As for your ideas in linked topics quite a few of them seem to favor chance not in the best way, or have kinda contradictory wishes of fairnes/balance and randomnes.

fairness and balance is not my only or even primary concern. Involvment is by far more important, and balance uses to work for involvment. And I don't care if a generator puts me in a bad position. After all, I couldn't think of a worse beginning position for me in GT01 (you will agree when Davide will publish some images or video) and I won the game. :P
morphles wrote:Last thing for this post: earth base/country based/(real)continent based maps. Somehow I find it a bit silly to "reinact" history in civ games.

Agree, again. :)

I would love to hear your opinion on my most ambitious ideas such as GreatTurn flavours. If I had time and coding skills I would do something rather than only chatting. But I think there's always need to think and rethink and watch the Big Picture in order to reach some actual results by coding and setting up matches and game community. This is IMHO the big potential and advantage of GT against the rather conservative LT community.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby morphles » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:18 pm

monamipierrot wrote:we also should hijack GreatTurn and have a hex game with GT10!

Seems to be a hard sell, though.

monamipierrot wrote:We should instead incourage players to leave big alliances with proper changes in game mechanics.

Like no allied victory :) I do not really see much trouble with size of alliance. And as you can see I have high hopes for no allied victory :) The problem with all such mucking with alliances are... out of balance with reallity, it's almost always good to have more allies, things like EU or NATO growth shows it IRL. Such things will likely transcend any rules and will be implemented using unofficial means. The simple fact is that the most important part of alliance is not tech trade or trade routes, but the fact that you have allies, that you have less enemies to worry about, that you have joint resource coordination. Yes maybe those features have problems, but solutions like randoms thing happens and you loose your stuff are silly. But if you like to be "lone wolf" god dammit you still will be boned by allainces, there is no way out of that.

monamipierrot wrote:Please tell me how can a battleship defeat some mobile people with a light weapon. How can it track them and properly bomb them from dozens of miles away? Many of Freeciv battles are "impossible" ones. But a Freeciv battle must end with only one survivor. So the battleship has no other option: after bombing, it needs to desembark some sailors to finish the job, and althou they have rifles and guns, they will be in a hostile environment. Meanwhile the spearmen (they are supposed to be thousands) could reach the battleship near the coast with some canoes by night, climb upon it and start to slaughter the other sailors. To give a 10 to 1 chances to the Battleship is in my opinion, more than enough, while in Freeciv it has a 3-digit number (or more) against 1.

If battleships knows about the presence of a unit presumably it can locate them, and the shells of battleship... they have termedous damage, and yes infrantry can scatter and hide in places, but still there is no way they could defeat a ship. And I really really would like to sea spearmen in caones clibing the battleship, seriously, think about it ;) Next is that such a large ship will stay quite far off shore. I can't say that you'r scenario is totaly impossible, it simply ridiculously improbable. Now for this But a Freeciv battle must end with only one survivor, it is not true, there are bombardment attack, which would be very approporiate for ships (i.e. inc civ3 ships always used bombardment when attacking land), the problem however is that freeciv allows only one kind of attack and thus ships would only be able to bombard eatch other, but couldn't kill one another, which would be silly.

Well maybe 3x is not that bad after all :)

One more interesting thing could be "assymetric games", i.e. different win conditions, I think I have brought that up. Not sure why I start this here, maybe I find it somethat related to "alliance problems". Having players with different conditions could alleviate some such problems or a game could be based on such alliances:) I think I mentioned somewhere such setup: empire vs rebels. One player starts with huge empire and has to vipe out all the rebeles while all other players are kinda in team or not, but lets say to win rebel has to kill empires king. One could setup that death of empires king means victory for all rebels or only for him, or maybe killer rebel becomes new emperor and no must fend of his past buddies.

Also locked teams! Dislike acreation of power? Setup some locked teams with equal number of players.

More weird stuff allso crosses my mind:
civ capture the flag every player has base (non city) which spawns flags you must go bring other players flags to your base (depending on rules you may need to have your flag present to score) to score point. Whoever reaches certain number of points first wins, probably locked teams with 1 player each.

civ footbal. Player or teams get special, ok again base, which hase special transportable unit ball, if ball is lost it is regenerated in players base, your poitn is to transport our ball into other players base. You ether get point for doing or/and player who gets ball "kicked in" looses point. This is something like reverse ctf.

probably some other weirdness too. I wonder how much such weird games would be acceptable. Though as there are no inherit sequence between games and many games can run in parallel it would probably possible to organize something like this for some fun fooling around.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

morphles wrote:Like no allied victory :)

I agree. I would have voted with you: one can ally but not win the game with allies. The main problem is: would an alliance actually DON'T CARE wether to win the game, and just RULE it?
morphles wrote: but still there is no way they could defeat a ship.

I woudl not be that sure, after all military history is full of anecdotes - this or more weird. Anyway, please read this post and its entire thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?s=679ff756e517fa8655f5d7fc5770b935&p=9693604&postcount=8)
morphles wrote:One more interesting thing could be "assymetric games",
...
Also locked teams!
...
civ capture the flag
...
civ footbal.
...
probably some other weirdness too.

Teams already existed in LT. The whole LT "tournament" system used to have this kind of alternate settings: one match was Without Teams, the other one With Teams. An additional alternate setting was programmed for either modality: With or Without Diplomacy in such a way that in every 4 matches there were 1 for each combination: Teams/Diplo - NoTeams/Diplo - Teams /NoDiplo - NoTeams/NoDiplo.
Teams worked very well: all the science thing and bulbs was used as the team were one single player, alliance and vision was fixed parameter between team mates. Everything else was as usual and all players had their own autonomy.
Team was an excellent way to train new players (my 1st game was a team one).
About other proposals, I'm in if properly planned and thought of. Asymettric games are very appealing too. I wouldn't mind have some AI to spice up things.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby ifaesfu » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:11 pm

Teams don't change anything. Several teams share techs and wipe out the others.
User avatar
ifaesfu
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Huelva, Spain

Re: Random map? [outcome: random map]

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:25 pm

ifaesfu wrote:Teams don't change anything. Several teams share techs and wipe out the others.

It can happen, but teams simplify things. And remember: only one team can win, and if there are less than 7 or 8 teams, one of them will prevail sooner or later.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Random map?

Postby morphles » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:15 am

So who will generate and preview map (+ adjust start positions if necessary)?:) Will it be you Davide?
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Random map?

Postby Davide » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:40 pm

Yes I'm giving for due that this role has fold-back to me. I'll generate a few maps between Wednesday and Thursday, then pick the "best" one. I'm delaying the map generation because more players could still confirm their participation (or regret) hence the map size would be affected.

I guess we don't need a preview leakage dossier of the very final map, but maybe I could just post minimaps or screenshots of those discarded maps generated in the pool for picking the best. They would be generated out of the same exact settings, so would give an approximate idea about what terrain features can be expected from the final map.
User avatar
Davide
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:34 am

Re: Random map?

Postby monamipierrot » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:59 pm

Davide wrote:Yes I'm giving for due that this role has fold-back to me. I'll generate a few maps between Wednesday and Thursday, then pick the "best" one. I'm delaying the map generation because more players could still confirm their participation (or regret) hence the map size would be affected.

I guess we don't need a preview leakage dossier of the very final map, but maybe I could just post minimaps or screenshots of those discarded maps generated in the pool for picking the best. They would be generated out of the same exact settings, so would give an approximate idea about what terrain features can be expected from the final map.


Great, and thanks.
Please pick up maps with special or crazy features (thin channels, thin istmuses, inner seas, mediterranean seas, archipealagoes, many continents, ring continents, continents attached to poles, etc.)
If we are not more than 30 players it could be a good idea just to let the generator do the placement job and then change those 2 or 3 unlucky players from swampy peninsulas or rocky tundras to more suitable places.
Also, you could generate a world with LESS players (e.g. 10-15 and "placement=two per continent")so it becomes more interesting (see above) and then just ADD more players, maybe in another big continent.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

PreviousNext

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron